On October 2, Russian President Putin attended the 22nd annual meeting of the Russian think tank Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi and delivered a speech.

Putin spoke about NATO, Europe, and regional situations, gave his views on the development of the Gaza War and the Russia-Ukraine War, and reviewed the interactions between the Soviet Union and Russia with the West over the years. He believed that the world system that wants to expel and isolate Russia is fundamentally inseparable from Russia; without Russia, no global balance would be possible.

More notably, Putin once again expressed his views on the current international order and global system. He said, "The concept of 'the majority of the world's countries' is a new phenomenon in international affairs. They have recognized their true interests, most importantly, they have the confidence and strength to withstand external interference and protect their own interests. At the same time, these countries are willing to cooperate with partners, transforming international relations, diplomacy, and integration into a driving force for their growth, progress, and development."

The interaction pattern within "the majority of the world's countries" is the prototype of a feasible political practice required by a multipolar world. The core of this model is pragmatism and a pragmatic spirit, discarding the "groupization" mindset, there are no hard obligations imposed by one party, nor any distinction between "main and secondary partners." Coordinating interests and abandoning confrontation are the core principles of this model.

In today's increasingly apparent multipolar world, to achieve such harmony and balance, Russia has already prepared itself to participate and strive for it.

Observatory Network translates the entire speech of Putin at the 22nd annual meeting of the Valdai Club for the reference of readers. (Translation/ Xue Kaiming)

Putin attends the Valdai International Discussion Club, Russian State News Agency

Putin:

I find it difficult to issue specific instructions, and I don't want to do so, because all instructions and suggestions are only for the purpose of not being followed afterward. This situation is well known.

Please allow me to talk about what is happening in the world, the current world situation, our role in it, and how we view the development prospects.

The Valdai International Discussion Club has indeed reached its 22nd session, and such meetings are not just a beautiful and precious tradition. Discussions on the Valdai platform provide an unbiased and comprehensive opportunity to assess the global situation, which can be said to record changes and understand their connotations.

Undoubtedly, the characteristics and advantages of the Valdai Club lie in its members not being content with mediocrity and having the ability to transcend conventional norms. It does not follow the agenda imposed on us by the global information space—especially the internet, which plays a role in this process, sometimes good, sometimes bad, but sometimes difficult to understand—instead, it tries to propose original questions of its own, express its views on the process, and lift the veil covering the future. This is not a simple task, but sometimes we can indeed achieve it, including the Valdai platform we have participated in together.

But we have pointed out several times that we live in an era where everything is changing, and the rate of change is extremely fast. I want to say that our era is undergoing fundamental changes. Of course, none of us can completely foresee the future. But this does not exempt us from the responsibility of being prepared for any possible situation. In fact, as recent events have shown, we must be prepared for any situation. In such a historical period, the responsibility each person bears for their own fate, the fate of their country, and the fate of the entire world is particularly significant. And the cost is very heavy.

As I just said, the annual report of the Valdai Club this year focuses on the topic of a multipolar, multi-centered world. This topic has actually been on the agenda for a long time, but now it deserves our special attention, and I agree with the organizers' view. Indeed, the formed multipolar structure determines the framework in which countries act. I will try to answer what the particularity of the current situation is.

First, it is a diplomatic space that is much more open, even可以说more creative. There is almost nothing predetermined here, and everything can develop in different directions. In this space, the accuracy, rigor, composure, and thoroughness of each participant's actions are important. Of course, in this vast space, people are naturally prone to losing direction and guidance, and as we know, this situation is quite common.

Secondly, the multipolar space is highly dynamic. Changes happen quickly—just as I said before—and sometimes suddenly, happening in an instant. Of course, it is very difficult to be prepared for these changes, and sometimes it is impossible to predict when the difficulty will come. We must react immediately, which is what people call real-time reaction.

Third, it is important that this space is more democratic, providing opportunities and opening paths for many political and economic participants. Perhaps never before in the world stage have so many countries had an impact or sought to have an impact on the most important regional and global processes.

Moreover, the cultural and civilizational characteristics of countries play a more important role than ever before. We must seek points of interest and common ground. Now no one is willing to follow the rules set by someone far away. As our very famous chanson singer (chanson is a classic French music form) once sang: "On the other side of the fog," or on the other side of the ocean.

In this context, the fifth point I want to mention is that any solution can only be based on an agreement that satisfies all stakeholders or the majority of them; otherwise, there will be no feasible solution, only hollow words and futile ambitions. Therefore, to achieve results, harmony and balance are needed.

Finally, the opportunities and risks in a multipolar world are inseparable. Of course, the characteristic of the previous era was the existence of authoritarian rule, and now "authoritarian rule" has weakened, and everyone's freedom space has expanded, which is undoubtedly a good thing. However, in such an environment, it is much more difficult to find and establish this stable balance, which itself is a clear and larger risk.

The global situation I want to briefly depict is a fundamental new phenomenon. International relations are undergoing fundamental changes. Whether it sounds contradictory or not, multipolarity is actually the direct result of trying to establish and maintain global hegemony, a response of the international system and even history itself to the attempt to incorporate all countries into a single hierarchical system, with Western countries at the top. This attempt's failure is just a matter of time, by the way, we have always mentioned this. And from a historical perspective, this has already happened, and it has happened quite quickly.

35 years ago, when the Cold War confrontation seemed to be heading toward an end, we had hoped for an era of genuine cooperation. At that time, it seemed that there were no ideological or other obstacles that would hinder us from jointly solving the common problems facing humanity, hindering us from managing and resolving inevitable disputes and conflicts on the basis of mutual respect and considering the interests of all parties.

Please allow me to briefly review a piece of history. Our country has even twice shown willingness to join NATO to eliminate the root causes of group confrontation and build a common security space. The first time was in 1954, during the Soviet era, we had proposed this willingness. The second time was during the visit of former US President Clinton to Moscow in 2000, which I have mentioned before, and at that time I had discussed this topic with him.

In 2000, then-US President Clinton visited Russia. Russian State News Agency

And both times, we were actually rejected, and directly rejected. I emphasize again: we were willing to cooperate, willing to take "non-traditional steps" in the fields of security and global stability. But our Western partners could not get rid of the constraints of geopolitical and historical stereotypes, could not get rid of simplified and paradigmatic perceptions of the world.

I have also publicly stated before that when I talked with President Clinton, he said, "You know, it's interesting, I think it's possible." But that night he said, "After discussing with my team, it won't work, it can't be done now." I asked, "When will it work?" Eventually, everything ended up in nothing.

In summary, we all had a real opportunity to develop international relations in another positive direction. Unfortunately, the leadership at that time chose another approach. Western countries could not resist the temptation of absolute power, which is a huge temptation. To resist this temptation, one must have historical vision, good literacy, including knowledge literacy and historical literacy. The decision-makers at that time obviously did not have such literacy.

It is true that the United States and its allies reached the peak of their power in the late 20th century. But there has never been, and there will never be, any force that can dominate the world, dictate what everyone should do, how to do it, and even how to breathe. They tried this, but all attempts ended in failure.

It should also be noted that for many countries, the so-called "liberal international order" seems acceptable, in a way, even convenient. This hierarchical order limits the development space of those not at the top of the pyramid—or please allow me to say, not at the top of the food chain, but living at its bottom. But this status exempts them from a large part of responsibility. The situation is like this: you just need to accept the conditions proposed by the West, integrate into this system, and get your share, then live your life comfortably without thinking about anything else. Then others will think for you, make decisions for you.

No matter what people say now, no matter who wants to justify it, the facts are as they are. All the experts here remember this very clearly and fully understand it.

Some countries arbitrarily believe they have the right to lecture all other countries. Others prefer to flatter the strong, be submissive, to avoid unnecessary trouble, and thus gain a small but stable "benefit." By the way, there are still many politicians in the old continent, namely Europe, who think this way.

Those who raise objections, try to protect their own interests, rights, and positions, are politely called "strange people," and it is implied that "you will never succeed anyway, so why not submit, acknowledge that you are nothing in front of our strength, insignificant." For those countries that are completely disobedient, the self-proclaimed world powers will unhesitatingly "teach them a lesson," so that everyone knows that resistance is futile.

This approach brings no good results. Global issues have not been solved, but new problems keep emerging. The global governance institutions established in the past either cannot function at all or have largely lost their effectiveness, in short, these two situations. No matter how much potential a single country or a group of countries accumulates, any power ultimately has its limits.

Russians and those present here know that there is a saying in the Russian folk: "There is no other way except to respond to destruction with destruction." And this "destruction" will always appear, you understand? This is the essence of all events in the world: this "destruction" will always appear.

Additionally, trying to control everything around you creates tension, and this tension impacts domestic stability, making the citizens of the countries that try to play the role of "great powers" ask reasonable questions: "What are we doing this for?"

Recently, I heard similar statements from American partners, who said, "We won peace, but lost America itself." I want to ask them, "Is it worth it? And have you really won peace?"

In the societies of major Western European countries, a clear trend of opposition to the excessive ambitions of the national political leadership has formed and is increasingly intensifying, and public opinion polls in various places confirm this. Those in power are unwilling to give up power, openly deceive their citizens, artificially create tensions in foreign relations, and adopt various speculative means domestically. They are increasingly frequent in walking on the edge of the law, and even openly violating it.

But it is impossible to always regard democratic and election procedures as a farce, to manipulate the will of the people. For example, Romania experienced something similar (note: Putin probably refers to the case of the "pro-Russian" far-right candidate Călin Georgescu in the 2024 Romanian presidential election, who initially ranked first in the first round of voting, but was banned from continuing to run by the Central Election Committee in Romania in December 2024. The Russian official believes this is a typical case of election manipulation). I won't go into details. Such cases exist in many countries, and some countries even directly try to ban domestic political opposition, which has actually gained higher legitimacy and more voters' trust. We are not unfamiliar with this, we experienced it during the Soviet era.

Far-right pro-Russian politician Călin Georgescu, video screenshot

Do you remember the song by Vysotsky? It says, "Even parades are canceled! Everyone is going to be completely banned!" But this approach doesn't work, prohibitions are ineffective.

And the wishes of these countries' people, the wishes of citizens are simple: they hope that the country's leaders will solve the people's problems, care about the safety and quality of life of the people, rather than chasing unrealistic fantasies. America is a clear example, where the people's demands have driven a significant shift in the political direction, which is a vivid example. For other countries, it is well known that the power of example is contagious.

In the period dominated by Western countries, the phenomenon of "a few dominating the many" is being replaced by more multilateral and cooperative ways. The core of this cooperation is: consensus among major actors and consideration of the interests of all parties. Of course, this certainly does not mean that complete harmony and absolutely no conflict can be guaranteed. The interests of countries will never be completely consistent, and the entire history of international relations is undoubtedly the process of countries striving to achieve their own interests.

However, the new atmosphere of international relations, which is increasingly dominated by the majority of the world's countries and has principle significance, gives us reason to expect that all actors will have to consider each other's interests when formulating solutions to regional and global issues. Because essentially, no one can achieve their goals in isolation from others. Despite the escalation of conflicts, the previous model of globalization has faced crises, and the world economy has become fragmented, but the world remains a whole, interlinked and interdependent.

We know this from our own experience. Everyone knows that in recent years, our opponents have made great efforts, in short, to push Russia out of the world system, putting us in a state of political, cultural, informational isolation and economic self-sufficiency. Regarding the punitive measures they have imposed on us - they are embarrassed to call them "sanctions" - the number and scale of measures against Russia have created an absolute record in world history: there are currently more than 30,000 types of restrictions, possibly even more.

What was the result? Have they succeeded? I think everyone here knows that these plots have completely failed. Russia has demonstrated a high level of stability and the ability to withstand the strongest external pressure, which can not only undermine a single country, but even a country alliance. Naturally, we feel a justified pride, proud of Russia, our citizens, and our armed forces.

But I have more to say. It has been proven that the world system they wanted to drive us out of and exclude us from is fundamentally inseparable from Russia. Because Russia is an essential link in the global balance, indispensable for this system. This is not only because we have vast territory, a large population, a strong defense, technological and industrial potential, and rich mineral resources. Of course, the factors I just listed are very, very important, they are key factors.

But the most important thing is that without Russia, it is impossible to build a global balance: whether it is economic balance, strategic balance, cultural balance, or logistics balance, any balance is unthinkable. I think those who want to destroy this balance have already realized this. However, there are still some people who stubbornly hope to achieve their goals, which they call "strategic failure" for Russia.

Well, if they don't see the inevitability of the failure of this plan, and still persist, I still hope reality will make them realize it. Even the most stubborn hardliners will recognize this in front of reality. They have repeatedly threatened, claiming to impose a complete blockade on us, using their own words: to threaten and force the Russian people - they even dare to use such wording - to make the Russian people suffer, and their plans are getting more and more unrealistic. In my opinion, it is time to calm down, face reality, and build bilateral relations in a new way.

We also understand that a multipolar world has strong dynamism. This world may seem fragile and unstable, because the state of things cannot remain fixed forever, and the balance of power cannot be determined for a long time. Because there are many actors involved, and the forces are asymmetric, the composition is complex. Each actor has its own competitive advantages and strengths, and these advantages and strengths form unique structures and patterns under different circumstances.

The current world is an extremely complex, multi-layered system. To correctly describe and understand this system, it is far from enough to rely solely on simple logical laws, causal relationships, and the resulting regularities. What is needed is the philosophy of complex systems: a theory similar to quantum mechanics, which is wiser and more complex than classical physics in some ways.

But in my opinion, it is precisely because of the complexity of the world that the possibility of reaching consensus has actually increased. Because linear, one-sided solutions are not feasible, and non-linear, multi-party solutions require very serious, professional, fair, and creative, sometimes even unconventional diplomatic efforts.

Therefore, I firmly believe that we will witness a unique revival, a revival of high-level diplomatic art. And the core of this diplomatic art lies in: the ability to communicate and negotiate with neighbors, with like-minded partners, and - equally important but more challenging - with opponents.

It is in this spirit of 21st-century diplomacy that new international mechanisms are gradually developing. This includes the expanding BRICS cooperation mechanism, as well as major regional organizations, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, and smaller but equally important regional alliances. Today, a large number of such organizations are emerging globally, I won't list them all, but you should be familiar with them.

Although these new forms of international cooperation differ in many ways, they have one most important common feature: they do not operate according to a hierarchy, or the rules of following a single dominant authority. They do not target any one party, but are dedicated to their own development. I emphasize again: the world today needs consensus, not imposing one's desires on others. Any form of hegemony cannot and will not be able to cope with the current scale of global governance tasks.

Under the current situation, maintaining international security is an extremely urgent and complex issue. The number of actors with different goals, political cultures, and unique traditions is increasing. This global complexity makes the formulation of security-related responses a much more complex and arduous task. But it also brings new opportunities for all of us.

September 10, 2025, Lille, France, protesters of the "Block Everything" movement wave flags next to burning trash bins. Associated Press

Grouping endeavors that are pre-set to aim for confrontation are undoubtedly an outdated mistake of the era, and they are meaningless. For example, we see that our European neighbors are tirelessly repairing the cracks within the European system. However, they want to heal the differences and consolidate the solidarity they once prided themselves on, not by effectively solving internal problems, but by fabricating "enemy images." This is an old trick, but the key is that the people of these countries see it clearly. Therefore, as I said earlier, even in the face of external tension and the authorities deliberately seeking "enemies," the people are still taking to the streets in protest.

Moreover, the "enemy" they have created is still the Russia of a century-old stereotype. Most Europeans cannot understand why Russia scares them so much, why they have to constantly "tighten their belts" to fight against Russia, forget their own interests, sacrifice their own interests, and implement policies that clearly harm themselves. But the ruling elites of the EU continue to incite panic. In their mouths, the war with Russia seems to be imminent. This nonsense, they repeat over and over.

To be honest, sometimes I look at their statements and hear their words, and I wonder: could they really believe these things? Could they really believe the statement that "Russia is planning to attack NATO"? This is unbelievable. But they are trying to convince their citizens. So what kind of people would do this? If they really believe what they say, then it can only indicate that they are extremely incompetent, because this nonsense is not believable. If they themselves do not believe it, but still try to convince the people, it is purely immoral. Are there any other possibilities?

To be honest, I really want to tell them: stop messing around, go to sleep, and solve your own problems. Look at what is happening on the streets of European countries, look at the economic, industrial, cultural, and identity crises that Europe is facing, look at the huge debts, the worsening social security system crisis, the uncontrolled immigration problem, the rising violence (including political violence), and how the left-wing, extreme liberal, and racist fringe groups are radicalizing.

They might as well pay attention to how Europe is gradually becoming a marginal player in global competition. We are very clear that the so-called "Russian invasion plan" and related threats that Europe uses to scare itself are all baseless, as I have already said. But self-deception is dangerous. For the sake of our own security and national defense, we cannot ignore the current situation, and we have a responsibility to pay attention to it.

Therefore, we are closely monitoring the military buildup in Europe. Should this merely remain verbal declarations, or should we take countermeasures? You have probably heard about it, for example, Germany has stated that the German army should once again become the strongest army in Europe. Okay, we will listen carefully and pay attention to their real intentions.

I think it goes without saying that Russia's countermeasures will not keep everyone waiting for long. For these threats, let's put it politely, our response will be very convincing. This is the response. We have never actively provoked military confrontation. Military confrontation is meaningless, unnecessary, and even absurd, it only makes people deviate from the real problems and challenges. Moreover, the people of the countries will eventually ask their leaders: why are our expectations, demands, and needs ignored?

If someone still insists on competing with us in the military field, as we say, since someone is willing to do it, let them try. Russia has repeatedly proven that when our security, the peace and tranquility of our people, our sovereignty, and the country itself are threatened, we will respond quickly.

We don't need to provoke them actively. Experience has shown that provocation will eventually bring misfortune to the provocators themselves. There will be no exceptions in the future, that's certain.

But our history proves that weakness is not advisable, because it can create an illusion and temptation, making people think that military force can solve the problems related to us. Russia will never show weakness and hesitation. Those who consider us a thorn in their side, those who have the fantasy of letting us suffer a "strategic failure," should remember this. By the way, those who once loudly proclaimed that we should suffer this failure, as we say, "are now nowhere to be found." Where are these people now?

There are countless objective problems related to nature, technology, and social factors around the world. Wasting strength and energy on artificial, even fabricated conflicts is unacceptable, extremely wasteful, and utterly foolish.

Currently, international security has a high degree of multidimensionality and indivisibility. No geopolitical value division can split it. Only through careful and comprehensive efforts, uniting all partners, and relying on innovative ideas can we solve the complex security challenges of the 21st century. In this process, there is no "more important" or "less important" element, nor is there a "particularly critical" link, all issues must be addressed comprehensively.

Our country has always and will continue to adhere to the principle of indivisible security. I have emphasized many times: the security of some countries cannot be achieved at the expense of the security of other countries. Otherwise, there is no security at all, which means no one is safe. We have not been able to promote this principle to be recognized. As I have mentioned many times, the forces that considered themselves "victors" after the Cold War, due to their arrogance and insatiable desire for power, wanted to impose a one-sided, subjective concept of security on everyone.

Actually, I am not only hinting at the Ukraine crisis, but this is also the real root of other intense conflicts in the first decade of the 20th century. The result, as we warned, is that no country can truly feel safe now. It is time to return to the origin and correct the mistakes.

But compared to the late 1980s and early 1990s, the "indivisibility of security" is now more complex. It is no longer just related to military-political balance and considerations of mutual interests. Human security also depends on our ability to deal with natural disasters, technological disasters, technological developments, and the challenges brought by rapidly evolving social, demographic, and information processes.

All these factors are interconnected, and their changes are largely spontaneous, as I said before, they often develop according to their own internal logic and rules, and are unpredictable, sometimes even beyond human will and expectations.

In this situation, humans may become outsiders, helplessly watching those processes that they can no longer control further develop. Isn't this exactly the systemic challenge we all face, isn't this exactly the opportunity for us to engage in constructive cooperation?

We currently don't have ready answers to solve the problems, but I believe that to solve global problems, we must first abandon ideological preconceptions and the preachy tone of "now I will teach you what to do." Second, we must recognize that this is a global endeavor that requires the joint efforts of all countries and peoples, and is indivisible.

Every culture and civilization should contribute its strength, because as I said before, no country can find the correct answer alone. The answer can only emerge through the joint exploration, gathering of forces, and sharing of national experiences of all countries.

I reiterate: interest conflicts and confrontations have existed in the past and will inevitably exist in the future, the key is how to resolve them. As I said today, the essence of a multipolar world is returning to traditional diplomacy: solving problems requires paying attention to each other's positions and mutual respect, rather than coercion.

Traditional diplomacy can take into account the positions of all actors in the international community and address the complex "coordination" issues between different countries. But in the past, Western "soliloquy diplomacy" replaced all of this, this diplomacy is filled with endless preaching and coercive orders. They no longer focus on resolving conflicts, but instead forcibly pursue the interests of one side, considering the interests of other sides insignificant.

As a result, conflicts not only fail to be resolved, but escalate, even turning into bloody armed conflicts and humanitarian disasters, is this surprising? Taking this approach cannot solve any problem. Examples of this abound over the past 30 years.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of them. The West, through unilateral diplomatic means, grossly ignores the history, traditions, identities, and cultures of the local nation, thus not only failing to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, but also failing to stabilize the Middle East situation, on the contrary, the situation in the region is rapidly deteriorating. We are currently deeply studying the relevant initiatives proposed by President Trump. In my opinion, this may bring a glimmer of hope for solving the problem.

The tragedy of Ukraine is another painful example. This is not only the suffering of the Ukrainian people, but also the suffering of the Russian people, and our common suffering. Anyone who takes the time to understand the historical background behind the current intense phase of the Ukraine crisis knows the root of the crisis. I will not elaborate, I believe everyone here knows this, and understands my position on this issue, and I have explained my position on this issue multiple times.

From November 2013 to February 2014, anti-government protests erupted in Ukraine, with hundreds of thousands of young people taking to the streets demanding pro-European and anti-Russian policies; the protests quickly turned into conflicts. Reuters

Another well-known fact is that those who have encouraged, incited, armed Ukraine, taught it to confront Russia, and nurtured naked ultra-nationalism and neo-Nazi tendencies in Ukraine for decades, to be honest, please allow me to speak frankly: they not only disregard Russian interests, but also disregard Ukraine's own interests, the real interests of the Ukrainian people. They don't care about the Ukrainian people, for the Western globalists, expansionists, and their puppets in Kyiv, the Ukrainian people are just expendable "consumables." The consequences of this reckless policy are evident, and I don't need to elaborate.

We can raise another question: could things have developed in a different direction? The answer is yes. I would like to mention President Trump's view again: he said that if he had been in office at that time, this crisis could have been avoided. I agree with this statement. In fact, if we had adopted a different cooperative approach with the Biden administration at that time, this crisis could have been avoided. If Ukraine had not been turned into a destructive tool in the hands of others, if NATO had not pushed its military expansion to our doorstep, if Ukraine had ultimately retained its independence and real sovereignty, this crisis could have been avoided.

Another question: how should the bilateral issues between Russia and Ukraine be resolved? By the way, I think the dissolution of the Soviet Union was also related to the stance of the Russian leadership at that time, who wanted to get rid of all ideological confrontations, hoping that "the era of brotherhood" would come after communism ended in our country. But the facts were not like that. Obviously, other factors were at work, the factors of geopolitical interests. Facts have proven that ideological differences were irrelevant in this context.

In a multipolar world, how should these issues be resolved? How should the Ukraine situation be resolved? I think that if the multipolar structure is truly achieved, each "pole" will consider its own situation in the Ukraine crisis, that is, include potential areas of tension and points of divergence within its own region in its considerations, so that collective decision-making will be more responsible and more cautious than now.

The core of solving the problem should be understanding: in this complex situation, all participants have their own interest demands. These interest demands are based on objective and subjective realities and should not be ignored. All countries have the right to pursue security and development, which is a reasonable demand. This naturally applies to Ukraine, Russia, and all our neighboring countries. In building a regional security system, the voice should mainly be held by the countries in the region. It is these countries that are most likely to reach a consensus on an interaction model that everyone can accept, because it directly relates to their own interests.

For some countries, the current situation in Ukraine is just a card in a larger game, and it is a card serving their own game, which is usually unrelated to the specific issues of the relevant countries (including Ukraine and other countries involved in the conflict). This is just an excuse for them to achieve their geopolitical goals and expand their control, and even to profit from the war. That is why NATO has pushed its military infrastructure to our doorstep. That is why for years, they have ignored the tragedy in Donbas, the genocide-like acts, and the persecution of Russians on our historic territory after the bloody coup in Ukraine in 2014.

In contrast to the behavior of Europe and the former US government, the actions of the majority of the world's countries are remarkable. These countries refuse to take sides, and are committed to providing practical assistance for achieving a just peace. We thank all the countries that have genuinely made efforts to find a solution to the situation in the past few years. This includes our BRICS partners: China, India, Brazil, South Africa, as well as Belarus, by the way, also including North Korea. This includes our friends in the Arab world, the Islamic world, first of all Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, as well as Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia in Europe, and many African and Latin American countries.

Unfortunately, we still cannot stop the military action, but this responsibility should not be attributed to the "majority of countries" who failed to prevent the conflict, but to the "few countries." First of all, Europe, which has continuously exacerbated the conflict, and in my opinion, Europe has no flexibility on this issue now. Although I believe that goodwill will prevail, I have no doubt about this: the situation in Ukraine is changing, although the process is slow, but we can see this change. No matter how people brainwash the public, the public's awareness will eventually change, and the position of the majority of the world's countries will also change.

Indeed, the concept of "the majority of the world's countries" is a new phenomenon in international affairs. I also want to talk a bit about this. What is the core meaning of this concept? It lies in the fact that the majority of the world's countries are committed to achieving their own civilizational interests, and the most core interest is to achieve balanced, sustainable development. This seems to be a given, and sounds as if it has always been like this. But in previous eras, the perception of these interests was often distorted: either due to unhealthy ambitions, or due to selfishness, or due to the influence of expansionist ideological concepts.

Now, most countries and nations—the so-called "majority of the world's countries"—have recognized their true interests. And most importantly, they have the confidence and strength to withstand external interference and protect their own interests. In addition, I would like to add that while promoting and protecting their own interests, they are also willing to cooperate with partners, that is, to turn international relations, diplomacy, and integration into a driving force for their own growth, progress, and development. The interaction pattern within "the majority of the world's countries" is the prototype of a feasible political practice required by a multipolar world.

The core of this model is pragmatism and a pragmatic spirit, discarding the "groupization" mindset, there are no hard obligations imposed by one party, nor any distinction between "main and secondary partners." Ultimately, this model can coordinate the interests of all parties, these interests are not always consistent, but generally do not conflict. Abandoning confrontation is the core principle of this model.

At present, a new substantial decolonization wave is emerging: former colonies, in addition to gaining national sovereignty, are gradually acquiring sovereignty in political, economic, cultural, and worldview aspects.

In this context, there is also an important anniversary. We have just celebrated the 80th anniversary of the United Nations. The United Nations is not only the most representative and universal political institution in the world, but also a symbol of cooperation, alliance, and even camaraderie. It was this spirit that united all forces in the first half of the 20th century to combat the most terrible evil forces in history: Nazism, that merciless machine of mass murder and enslavement.

We are proud to believe that in this common victory, that is, the victory over Nazism, the Soviet Union undoubtedly played a decisive role. Just look at the number of casualties of all countries that participated in the Anti-Hitler Coalition, everything becomes clear without the need for further explanation.

The United Nations is undeniably the legacy of the victory in World War II and the most successful practice of creating international organizations to date. Under this framework, we have the opportunity to solve pressing global issues.

Today, people often say that the United Nations system is paralyzed and facing a crisis, which has become a common view. Some even claim that the United Nations is outdated and needs to be thoroughly reformed. Indeed, the operation of the United Nations has many problems, many problems. But we must also admit that there is no mechanism more effective than the United Nations at the moment.

Indeed, the problem is not with the United Nations itself, because it has tremendous potential. The real problem is: we, who should unite, but unfortunately have become divided, how to use these capabilities.

There is no doubt that the United Nations is facing challenges. Like all organizations, it also needs to adapt to the changing reality. However, in the process of reforming and improving it, it is crucial that we do not lose or distort its core meaning. Its core meaning not only includes the purposes established at the time of its creation, but also the values formed during its complicated development process.

It is necessary to review history here: since 1945, the number of UN member states has increased nearly fourfold. This organization, initially initiated by a few major countries, has not only expanded in scale over decades but also integrated many different cultures and political traditions, gaining diversity. Long before the world entered a multipolar era, the United Nations had already become a truly multipolar organization. The potential of the United Nations system is only beginning to be released, and I firmly believe that in the coming new era, this potential will be released faster.

In other words, the "majority of the world's countries" are naturally in the majority in the United Nations, which means that the structure and governance bodies of the United Nations should be adjusted accordingly. By the way, this will also be more in line with the basic principles of democracy.

On September 23, Trump attended the UN General Assembly and gave a speech, one hour of speech, half self-praise, half scolding the world. Video screenshot

I do not deny that there is still no consensus among all parties on how the world should be built in the next few years or even decades, and on what principles the world should be based. We have entered a long period of exploration, to a large extent, we are moving forward in the dark. The final framework of the new stable system is unknown. We must be prepared: in a considerable period of time, social, political, and economic development will show unpredictable characteristics, sometimes even full of turbulence.

To maintain a clear direction and not deviate from the track, everyone needs solid support. In our view, this support first comes from the values accumulated over centuries in the cultures of each country. Culture and history, ethics and religious principles, the influence of geography and region. These are the core elements of civilization, the foundation of unique communities formed over centuries, which determine national identity, value orientation, and tradition, and these are the guiding principles that help us not lose our way and stand firm in the turbulent international situation.

Tradition is always unique and has its own characteristics, every country has its own tradition. Respecting tradition is the primary prerequisite for promoting smooth international relations and solving various problems.

The world has experienced attempts at "unification," some tried to impose so-called "universal models" on everyone, and this model is contrary to the culture and ethical traditions of most nations. The Soviet Union made this mistake, forcing its political system on others. We know this, I think no one will object to this. Later, the United States took over this "baton." The practices of Europe are similar. But whether it is the former or the latter, ultimately they ended in failure. Superficial, forced, and artificial things, especially those imposed from the outside, ultimately cannot last. A country that respects its own traditions usually will not invade the traditions of other countries.

Under the current unstable international situation, the importance of "autonomous development foundations that do not depend on international transmission" has become particularly prominent. We see that countries and nations are increasingly returning to these foundations. This trend not only appears in the "majority of the world's countries," but also Western societies are gradually moving in this direction. If everyone can uphold this concept, focus on their own development, not be carried away by unnecessary ambitions, it will be easier to find common language with other countries.

We can take the current Russian-American interaction experience as an example. It is well known that there are many differences between our two countries, and we have different views on many global issues. For such two big countries, this is normal, actually completely reasonable. The key is how to resolve these differences, whether they can be resolved peacefully.

The current US government explicitly states its own interests and demands. I think you will agree with my view, sometimes they are even too direct, but at least there is no unnecessary hypocrisy. It is better to clearly understand the intentions and goals of the dialogue partner than to guess their real intentions in a series of ambiguous and vague hints.

We see that the current US government's actions are primarily based on its understanding of its own interests. I think this is a rational approach.

But, to be frank, Russia also has the right to be guided by its own interests. By the way, restoring comprehensive relations with the United States is one of our national interests. No matter what differences there are between us, as long as we respect each other, even if the negotiations are difficult and tense, the goal is ultimately to reach a consensus, which means that finding a solution acceptable to both sides is completely possible.

A multipolar, multi-center structure has been our long-term reality. Whether we can quickly and effectively build a stable international order based on this reality depends on each of us. And in today's world, such an order, such a model, can only be achieved through the joint efforts and participation of everyone. I reiterate again: the era where a few major countries decide the lifestyle of the entire world has gone forever.

Those who miss the colonial era should remember: in that era, people were divided into so-called "equals" and "more equals." Orwell's (George Orwell, a 20th-century British writer, famous for his dystopian works "Animal Farm" and "1984," is a well-known anti-colonialist.) famous quote is well known to us. Russia has never had this racist way of thinking, and it has never, and will never, hold this attitude towards other nations and other cultures.

We support diversity, support the coexistence of multiple civilizations, and support the exchange of values. You should agree with my view: a world that is the same everywhere is definitely dull. The destiny of Russia has been full of ups and downs and hardships. The formation process of the Russian state is itself a history of overcoming major historical challenges.

I am not saying that the development of other countries has been smooth, which would be unobjective. But Russia's experience is largely unique, and the country it has shaped is also unique. This is not claiming "specialness" or "superiority," but simply an objective statement of our own uniqueness.

We have experienced countless upheavals, providing various intellectual materials to the world. These materials have both negative and positive aspects. But thanks to this historical accumulation, we have a greater ability to cope with complex, nonlinear, and uncertain world situations. We will all live in such a world in the future.

No matter what changes occur, Russia has proven one thing: it existed in the past, exists now, and will always exist in the future. We are aware that Russia's role in the world will change, but it will always be an indispensable force. Without this force, achieving harmony and balance in the world is extremely difficult, if not impossible. This fact has been tested by history and time, and there is no dispute about it.

But in today's multipolar world, the harmony and balance I mentioned can only be achieved through the joint efforts of everyone. I want to assure you: Russia has already prepared itself to participate and strive for it.

Thank you for your attention. Very grateful.

This article is an exclusive contribution from Observers Network. The content of the article is purely the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the platform. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow Observers Network WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7557638670895923751/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author, and you are welcome to express your attitude by clicking on the [Top/Down] button below.